Debate Teacher Reacts: Frank Turek vs. David Silverman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- This debate was the one of the first to ever be requested. It's Frank Turek vs. David Silverman on which best explains reality: Theism or Atheism? Which person bested the other? The Christians or the Atheists? Find out in this video!
Link to the full debate: • Examine Reality (Frank...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
You have to do White vs Silverman next because Silverman asked the SAME question but was given a completely different answer. It’s a great contrast.
I saw James White's response to this debate and then showing his own debate with Silverman. Silverman's wind left his sails in about 3 minutes flat and he sometimes repeat questions hoping to get a rise only to get stomped on again by simple and concise answers.
I was about to say the same thing. Silverman had a completely different experience in that debate.
God’s sovereignty in election of people for His own glory stumped the man’s whole question.
Many people don’t like this, but it is largely due to the consistency of the reformed position. Atheism has nowhere to go with the reformed position, its takes their legs out from under them
@@AarmOZ84yep
James White also debated Silverman on the same issue, which was a very different interaction than this one. Definitely worth checking out.
It was a really good debate but not the same issue. This debate was to be on the question "Which better explains reality" the debate with Dr. White was "Is the New Testament evil?" It was much better because both of them stayed on point much better.
Granted, but most of what Nate looked at was their interaction on the fall and how it’s just for God to allow that to happen. Since Turek and White come at it from different perspectives, that’s where the differences appear, and I thought White handled it better overall. White himself pointed out how they answered Silverman very differently (this clip points it out: ruclips.net/video/gUOrFJ_evOA/видео.html).
@@cesarvigil-ruiz5324 I was going to link this same clip😂
@@josemuniz_ We're all such nerds. I love it!
James White definitely did a much better job on the problem of evil
As a Christian, the moment Turek begins pulling up the video is when I facepalm and begin muttering under my breath.
I think he loves the LORD and knows how to present information, but he does not debate well and it seems he is not able to discern the crux of the issue. Using a PowerPoint and Video was very disrespectful of Silberman’s time.
@@DaysofElijah317 what are you guys talking about? The video was under two minutes, most debaters wouldn't even finish one sentence in that time. I thought it was very smart. Silberman was interrupting him constantly it was a great way to force him to listen for a moment. Also how is it out of bounds?? Who made up that rule? People use visual presentation dyring debates all the time, they bring their own powerpoints, videos, physical books and papers they wave around, all kinds of stuff. How is this soooo bad? It made a good point about origin of evil that Silberman couldn't refute at all! What are you guys Calvinists or something? I know Nate is so I was expecting him to roll his eyes, but come on!
@@mitromneyI’ve watched a lot of his other stuff and really appreciate his apologetics but we were talking about this debate which we watched at length. Also wise disciple will continually remind people they are allowed in debate to interrupt to stay on topic during cross examination the fact that Turek didn’t answer his question but launched into a power point was rude and the moderator should have stepped in and he was very condescending acting as if Silverman couldn’t follow his presentation and should y old his time to Turek.
I stand by my earlier comment I know he knows the LORD and am grateful for his apologetics work but his debating isn’t strong.
I agree though I still disagree with Nate that Silverman made any truly good points. He contradicts himself constantly, Turek's biggest problem is he didn't properly explain how.
@@davidryan8547 yeah Silverman didn’t make any good points, but Turek could have made the best points and still lost because of this stunt
Yay!!! I've been eagerly waiting for your next debate reaction video lol. This is my favorite content from you. I love your informed analysis of these interactions !
Within about 10 seconds Silverman went from saying "we have free will" to "i don't know" in response to Turek asking how can we have free will if we are just molecules in motion.
Watched my first Wise Disciple video about a week ago, and I've been stuck. Thank you Nate!
This was extremely difficult to watch. When I took debate in high school I struggled with not allowing my emotion to overpower my rhetoric. This video aptly portrays why learning that skill is so important.
When you said you might need to start another channel to do with literature and poetic language, all I can do is quote Aron Ra. BRING IT!
Lol! I'm afraid that might be too niche for RUclips. Or maybe not... hmm....
I’m an English teacher and I would love that!
It's rather funny and ironic that you would quote Aron Ra, in context to literature and poetic language, considering his main argument is consistently redefining words and definitions.
@@GraceAlone614 It was less Aron himself and more the way he said "Bring it!" That were important for the comment
@@euanthompson I understand that. I'm just saying it's ironic you would choose to quote Aron, out of all people.
That Silverman was a total interruption machine. See Frank didn’t answer because I cut him off before he can finish a sentence.
My answer to Silverman's, and every single other atheist's question, God KNEW that even with all of the horrible things He KNEW that you would do, and the horrible things that would happen to you, He KNEW it would be worth it to create you. God is outside of time. Right now, God is in paradise with all of us who have accepted His Redemption, and He sees how ecstatic and glorious we will be in His presence.
The simple answer to Silberman’s argument: if man does not have the ability to sin, then God is lying about free choice, which makes him not God.
If I take someone and put them in an arena with an objective to get out of it and say these things are against the rules and give them no ability to break the rules, you cannot then break the rules.
Example: you are not allowed to use a grappling hook to leave the arena but then inside the arena I don’t place the grappling hook or any of the items to create one.
Fascinating discussion! I need to see the entire thing.
The problem with Silverman's question about why God didn't put the tree here instead of there. Can be the same question of why God created satan instead of not creating him that he wouldn't convince Eve to eat the fruit.
I would have awnsered.
It's because of free will, evil only exist because of the choices they make. If God created all beings with no choices except living with God and thinking like God. It would mean we were created to be slaves with no rights or thoughts of our own that in that context is bad.
However if a living person gives up their free will because they want to reach the truth that good does exist. It's not bad, because God allowed us to think for ourselves to know where is the standard of good that we should live by. And that's God, but that requires faith in him which Adam failed because he didn't have faith.
With that argument, Silverman is also assuming God's omniscience is linear like our perception of time.
Basically, his argument is "God could do A and nothing bad would happen, or He could do B and people go to hell. He is bad for choosing B." But why assume those are the options? Why assume Adam wouldn't have ALSO sinned at B, or assume there's no timeline in which Adam WOULD choose good at A? To say God knows Adam will sin and is therefore causing suffering by presenting the choice anyway is to assume that God is looking at a predetermined outcome in linear time; God is a timeless being as as such wouldn't share our linear perception. God doesn't just know "if A, then B will happen" - God knows every single individual possibility that COULD happen, every single split in the timeline, every flap of a butterfly's wing, all simultaneously as He exists outside of linear time itself. Why assume God's omniscience works like a man peering forward towards a predetermined end and choosing for it to happen anyway? It's a category error
So in another way christians are fighting for a life without free will because free will cant exist in a place like heaven where everything is good
*upon what basis* do you declare such and such thing to be immoral. Exactly right
There is no way Adam could ever prove he loves God if God did not give Adam a restriction (do not eat of the fruit). And God just made one restriction.
You would never know your wife loves you if any thing she could possibly do means she loves you. Period.
This exchange demonstrates why the reformed position on the problem of evil is the best position in my humble opinion
Exactly!
Couldn’t agree more!
The Bible is the best reason why the reformed position regarding evil is pure nonsense.
Not reformed, but I completely agree.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 Probably not.
Lots of people interpret the exact same Bible in different ways. They are not all right. For this conversation to move forward, it would be beneficial if you gave specific reasons as to why the reformed interpretation of the Bible is inferior to your interpretation of the Bible.
(Pro tip: expect to not get very far. Most Reformed folks are ahead of the pack when it comes to Bible knowledge and comprehension. Watch any decent debate between a reborn person and a non-reformed person, and look at Who quotes more scripture, in context. Almost without exception, it is always the reformed folks.)
Hard to call a winner in a debate where the subject strays so* hard and fast. If misscharacterizing Christianity was the goal Silverman won, if not directly answering questions was the goal Turek won.
Yeah, that was a mess, lol
Could you do James White vs David Silverman? I thought White did a great job in the cross examination in that debate.
I think I got that on the list! Any others you think of, let me know 😊
@@WiseDisciple I think from a teaching perspective, the link that was provided above by Cesar would be interesting. In it, James White compares this debate to his own with Silverman. He basically puts just the parts of cross examination that deal with the problem of evil side by side so you can see the differences in how their theology is brought to bear on apologetics, specifically related to this topic. You could basically compare the two of them and show strengths/weaknesses, things they did right, things they did wrong, points they focused on vs points they ignored, etc.
I will follow what many people are saying in the comments and recommend that you react to the debate between James White and David Silverman
Turek was slapped and I'm a Christian... sorry but turek did a horrible job. James White did much better like million times better.
Woohoo! Another one. I've been waiting for this
Regarding the whole “babies with cancer” objection:
The burden of proof is on the atheist (Silverman) to demonstrate that God could achieve His purposes better by allowing less suffering in the world, either natural evil (earthquakes, disease, etc.) or moral evil (murder, rape, etc.).
And as an aside, how do we know how much evil and suffering God _is_ preventing in the world?
Answer: we don’t.
Why?
_Because He’s preventing it, that’s why!_
Why is the burden of proof on atheists to prove these things? Isn’t it the Christian who is arguing that God is good and just? What possible good does baby cancer provide? Simply saying that God prevented lots of other evil doesn’t demonstrate anything-can you show that God prevented any evil? Can you demonstrate it? Why on earth would atheists need to demonstrate any of this when they don’t even believe in God?
How does this make any sense? God is making the world and He can’t achieve His good ends unless he allows baby cancer??? This makes God seem so weak to me.
Authority and standard can and should be understood as interchangable terms in this context. Not a huge Turek fan, but he is right on the money here during the first part at least.
Awesome video, Nate. Would recommend you do a video of D’Souza vs Hitchens, great debate. D’Souza sure is good on his feet.
Excellent, I'll add it to the list! Thank you, and thanks for watching 😊
I saw them equally perform. The only reason I give the edge to Turek is that he was charming to the audience. So if the audience is who vote for the winner, I think they'll give it to Turek.
This has been a great channel to find recently, thanks for the content
I'm not trying to attack or offend when I point out that discussions like these technically aren't even debates. They're arguments. A debate requires a fundamentally agreed upon foundation. So discussing the nature of everything is not considered a proper debate.
But this kind of thing has been going on for so long that I guess it's useless for me to point out.
@28:55 if that's the way Frank turek actually thinks then there's nothing left to discuss because he has devised for himself a universal answer for any contention.
And I'm a believer in God and not against Christians so I feel like I'm being pretty objective here.
It's actually funny for me because I formed similar talking points that Tuerk is using here. I didn't use them for very long tho...lol
Placing the baby with the homosexual couple is the immoral position. To intentionally deny a child a mother and to cause that child to be raised in an atmosphere of sexual perversion and gender confusion is completely unconscionable. It is tantamount to child abuse.
James White did SOO much better of a job against Silverman.
Arminians can't defend the soveriegnty of God because of their wrong conception of Biblical human free will.
Please react also to James White and David Silverman debate. You would see the difference how James White answered the same question that David asked Turek.
I "liked" the video before I started watching. I wasn't disappointed.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Thanks so much for continuing to watch, Tim! 😊
I usually don’t like Silverman, but Silverman clearly kicked Frank’s ass in this debate, and bad.
I am surprised Turek did not have a better answer to the question of evil. This is the most expected question and is reasonably answerable in the Christian worldview.
He’s not unique. Non-Calvinist usually answer the same way. They don’t want to bit the bullet if their position.
When the video Turek played said without choice there can be no freedom, does he mean eternal choice, that is the ability to choose one or the other, or does he mean the offer of more than one option? Furthermore, if choice is essential to freed will does not it follow that infinite choice is necessary? And yet it is clear not only do we not have infinite choices (offers), but we have often two; the broad road or the narrow road.
The main point is, however, if you believe that morality is relative, then your moral condemnation of God or the bible carries no weight.
You really should react to Silverman vs White. Shows a vastly different approach and I think demonstrates the superiority of the presuppositional approach.
This debate perfectly sums up why I don't like Frank Turek that much. He didn't answer the question of natural evil. There are good defenses, but the free will argument only works if the cancer is man made, which most are not and especially not in babies.
Silverman won the debate on that alone, even with the blatant worldview smuggling.
Really neither of them won the debate. Just Silverman didn't do as badly.
He did answer the question actually, just very unclearly to anyone who doesn't already understand Christian beliefs about sin nature.
Yes, cancer IS a result of man's free will - but not a 1 to 1 "I choose to have cancer" like Silverman is framing his response.
God gave Adam free will, and Adam chose sin. "By one man sin entered into the world." Adam made a bad decision that led to not only sin entering the earth, but death entering the world, as "the wages of sin is death." Part of this curse of sin takes the form of disease and mutation - such as cancer. The universe is in a constant state of decay and entropy, and every generation is born with more mutation than the one before. Cancer is just one form that the constant state of decay and disease takes, one that we (rightfully) recognize to be extremely tragic.
So man's choice DID lead to babies being born with cancer. That doesn't mean it was 1 to 1 direct action with obvious consequence; just like choosing to drive a car might inadvertently lead to an accident, the possibility of evil outcomes were present, but that doesn't mean you intentionally agreed to them. And even that allegory is flawed because it already ASSUMES the existence of evil (death, suffering, violence, etc.)
The question was answered very clearly...CLEARLY
babies having cancer is a consequence of man's sin reflected in heredity.
Silverman is blowing hot air going round the same talking point. That's a sign he's not a Christian
@@emmanuelginikanwa283 can you and drawingdragon knock heads and work out whether he was clear or unclear and then come back to me on it?
I recently got my masters and in one of my last classes I was presented with a study that was done that found that the choices of our ancestors affected their dna which then affected the dna of their descendants. I found this fascinating because it could show that such things like childhood cancer actually could be the consequence of the choices of our ancestors that made the child susceptible to cancer.
Christian here. It's cringey when Turek treats these debates like one of this lectures and Q&A sessions of his book tours. Debates are not lectures. Bring your statements and ideas to the debate, not your PowerPoint presentation.
I’d like to see a reaction to the debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on Sola Scriptura (Pints with Aquinas hosts the video; it’s audio only but really good, and gets heated).
I'm not a debate pro or anything, but it seemed like Turek was on his back foot the entire time. "I don't want to watch a video, I want you to answer the question" was exactly right. I like Turek as a person, I think he's smart, I think he's right mostly, but in a debate I think he's good for a few one-liners and not a substantive, focused conversation. I would guess he's probably a better writer, where he has time to organize and structure his arguments.
He’s not a good apologist, then. If he makes his living by training people to defend their faith, but he can’t do it himself, he needs another line of work.
I would very much like to see you react to a Tovia Singer debate. I don't know which would be best, the only one I've seen is with R L Solberg, but any would be appreciated.
Thank you for the suggestion! I'll add it to the list 😊
Turek using a video to say what he could verbalize himself? Stupid stupid stupid. Not to mention the freewill idea fails when it comes against God's will. God gets His way regardless of what one thinks they can choose.
Turek was a weak defender of Truth in this discussion.
I'm a Christian, but I think Silverman won this argument logically, even though I don't agree with him on a deeper note.
Need that Dyer vs Dillahunty
Frank says “god couldn’t create a place where sin couldn’t happen…” what’s heaven?
Heaven is the state where God and His angels, spiritual beings who arent made in His image, reside. I believe you're probably referring to the New Earth, but even then it doesn't necessarily follow that the New Earth will be sinless and therefore the current earth should have been.
If the purpose of free will was to create beings in His image with the capacity to choose good and love Him freely, and the New Earth is the promised home for believers who DID make that decision to love Him with their own free will, already the New Earth is starting with a different premise entirely; it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but instead as a "reward" for the humans who DID use their free will to choose to love God.
I think on the question of evil, specifically suffering of humans, Christians (of which I am one), need to own a crucial truth; we are quite literally the property of Another, namely God. God may do with us what He pleases. He gives life and He taks life. He uses, from the same lump, some for the glory of His grace and others the glory of His wrath. The reason we do not like this is because we will to be masters of our own life, we wish to be autonomous, in other words we wish to be God. When we as Christians fail to reason from these truths, we cut the limb we sit on, and aid and abett satan and his children. We cannot escape that if there is a God, He may do what pleases Him with us, and since a stream can't rise above its source, we can't say we are more good then Him.
I don't imagine anyone will respond to this, but I just wanted to write a little bit about the free will problem and some other aspects of this debate and discussion that I found frustrating.
One thing I found a bit frustrating was the criticism of the atheist for mischaracterizing Christianity. I think it's frustrating just because Christians have a lot of different teachings, and so I think it can be easy to just say that the atheist got it wrong for whatever teaching they are critiquing because they didn't use the particular understanding that you hold to, or they don't accept the idea that in the end God is good in all His decisions (which of course is going to be a Christian teaching) or something like that. Of course an atheist is not going to fully buy in to all the Christian teachings when they go into these things--that's why they are an atheist--but they also can't operate on and know about every Christian understanding of scripture either. There are a lot of different explanations, and a lot of those explanations come down to "God is bigger than us so He could have a good reason", which can feel really insubstantial.
About free will, I find one of the biggest frustrations with this discussion is just... if God made everything, He basically decided everything in advance. I don't mean just because He knows everything that will happen. He MADE everything.
He made every part of me.
My likes.
My desires.
My strengths.
My weaknesses.
He made the parts of me that give me patience or make me mad. He made my stamina, my level of intelligence. He made my ability to feel pain. All the DNA of my being. And not just me, but everyone else--everyTHING else. Silverman has a point here, in that God put that tree there--but also EVERY OTHER THING, both physical and mental and spiritual, and knew exactly how they would work amongst each other, and also He made the time itself. AND He put SATAN THERE. How could anyone get through that gauntlet? How much can we even understand of what we are doing, even in the best of circumstances? But God understands every little piece, planned every little piece. How can He blame us when He knows us to that degree and planned things out to that degree? It seems so bizarre to me, and I am a Christian. I just struggle to believe and trust these things.
We live in a world where everyone chooses evil now. It seems pretty obvious that God could've made a world where everyone chooses good with just as much freedom. Heaven is such a place, is it not? Most of the angels choose good, do they not? Is Heaven not as good as earth? I don't know, this discussion is so frustrating.
The problem with most of the debates between theists and atheist is that every single one of them both of them they are talking about a different God. One with orange and the other one talking about apples.
Turek needed to point out that in order for love to exist, Adam and Eve had to have the opportunity to eat the fruit. If the tree was inaccessible then we would need the robots from Turek's admittedly regrettable video.
I have heard this argument over and over again. Where did you get it from? And, why do you think it’s true and convincing?
On the substance I agree more with Silverman, on rhetoric I think Turek won because it was easier for Turek to preach to the choir since this debate took place in a church and Silverman kept walking into Turek’s trap on objective morality. It’s the same problem as the Turek vs. Hitchens debate, the moment you speak in moral terms against Turek’s “By what standard” argument, Turek wins. What Silverman (and Hitchens) should have done is challenge the notion that God is necessary for believing objective morality with something like Euthyphro dilemma rather than going on a tangent on biblical stories and nazi’s. Overall this debate was particularly a mess as both sides wound up going way off topic from the original debate prompt.
My goodness, this was a mess!
In other debates, silverman lies about the psalms.
It made it extremely difficult to watch him anywhere else.
When it comes to asking the question of why God allowed evil in the first place, you Have to embrace Reformed Theology.
You have to understand the Sovereignty of God, Frank Turek is not from Reformed in his Theology. James White vs Silverman was different because James White is Reformed in theology. Notice the difference between Reformed and not Reformed. James White understands the Sovereignty of God revealed in Holy Scripture.
Could you please do James White and David Silverman?
The irony is that Turek's RUclips channel is called "Cross Examined"
Every debate I’ve seen, it always comes back to the atheist showing the anger they obviously hold towards God. They always wanna know why bad things happen and why kids die etc and the truth is because His will be done. He can do as He pleases. And also because he’ll is so so awful, God uses anything and everything to bring people to repentance! And we do not know why some things happen exactly, we trust that God does though! And they never give credit to man’s free will and satans influence. God gets blamed for the sin of others. We do not and never will have all the answers to this question besides for His glory, and for our repentance
Turek was on autopilot. He has the answer, he was not communicating it clearly.
These kind of debates are hard for me because they’re yelling constantly. I get the passion, but they really need to relax.
If the Satanist hadn't interrupted Turek continuously, he would have heard the answer which would have caused him to lose--which is why he spoke over the answer.
How is Silverman going to have the “upper hand” when all he is saying are “Straw man” nobody is saying that God “needs” babies with cancer, And if he knew a little bit about what we believe he would know that God doesn’t send you to hell (unless you are a fatalist Calvinist) but the reason people go to hell is because they sin and rejected God’s Grace
If someone asked you 'If there is an all powerful, good God then why does my baby have cancer?' what would you say?
Not sure whether or not you actually wanted a response.
That is a question too horrible to contemplate and I am reticent about even giving my thoughts but here goes.
It would depend on whether the person knew if I was a believer in Christianity or possibly an atheist or of another religion.
If according to Turek I was a Christian, I would most likely respond that for reasons only God knows, the baby is now in heaven and you will be reunited when you go there as well.
Is that really a satisfactory answer?
Logically it means that the surviving parents and possible siblings of the baby will now have to go through the rest of their lives, possibly up to say 85 years reliving the agony and the torment of watching THEIR baby, brother or sister go through the suffering of an insidious disease.
Even if the baby survived the cancer they would all still go through the most gut wrenching time watching a helpless individual go through the side effects of the possible cure.
The Christian might then say to the parents, God allowed the child to survive !
You are then faced with the question if the baby survived.............if medicine was able to cure the baby why would God have allowed cancer in the first instance ?
This why I am an atheist/humanist.
Silverman is saying why didn't God keep us in the garden after the fall. All the disasters is because ALL of creation is under a curse. Also the devil is the god of this world and he comes only to steal, kill and destroy.
I would suggest that people like Silverman fall into a new moral and ethics category, Govermentalism. Government dictates what Silverman believes at any given time, whatever government states to be true, then that view is the one he uses an anytime based on their authority. Which is wholly human and secular!
Subjectively moralism is objective morality to those that believe the government is their source!!!
that's legalism and legalism is something independent of non-religious morality
Turek is hit or miss, but this was like watching some lost episode of The Office where Michael Scott insists he can debate and challenges a rival company. Michael Scott would totally cut to videos and slides for no reason and declare “we are just getting started” at the end. 🤦♂️
I would love and hate to watch an episode where Michael and Dwight are on the same debate team
It's so weird to me to see people who do not believe in moral objectivity attempting to make a moral argument. If there is no objective morality, then under what basis is any objection made? It would seem that the only grounds are essentially, "I don't like it," or "we, as a group, don't like it," to which the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?" If one begins with the premise that there is no objective morality, then one's argument against slavery, for example, has no teeth because someone else can disagree with you; and you have no means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic. You've already conceded that morality is subjective; and from that individual's perspective, their actions _are_ moral. However, that doesn't stop people from making moral arguments anyway. "Slavery is evil!" "Bigotry is evil!" "This is evil!" "That is evil!" Evil according _to whom?_ Based on what _metric_ Who determined that metric? On what _basis?_ On whose _authority?_ How do we know that is the "right" view? It all becomes meaningless, which makes these moral high ground fallacies all the more laughable.
It's not that these individuals aren't _able_ to act morally. It's not that I _disagree_ with their assessments as to which actions are moral, which are immoral, and which are amoral and cannot be judged on a moral basis. Rather, it's that if there is no objective morality, they cannot cannot *justify* their moral assessments beyond, "I don't like it," which isn't a compelling argument because it sounds like petulant child's argument. Even if we agree that certain acts are immoral, if one is to convince a dissenter of this, one needs a better argument than a toddler's "I don' 'wike' it!," and, as best as I can tell, you can't get to a better argument without an objective standard.
How do you decide if something is morally right or wrong?
It will always just be an opinion. That is why countries are often at war, because we do not share the same values and morals.
If everything were objective, there would be peace on earth because there would be nothing to argue about
@@ss-lz4me countries are not often at war, and countries go to war for resources, not because they think another country is being very immoral
@@tonyisnotdead
They justify it under the name of god....
@ss-lz4me
Your argument demonstrates only that there is disagreement as to what is (im)moral--not that a moral objectivity doesn't *exist.* I would like to think that we can agree that an objective _truth_ exists. That which is objectively true (ie, conforms to reality) is true regardless of anyone's desire to the contrary, attempts to prove otherwise, or motives for doing so; what is, *_IS._* Yet, this doesn't prevent or even dissuade people from making such attempts to prove otherwise.
Why would morality be any different? It would seem to me that a moral objectivity can *exist,* and that this would neither prevent nor dissuade people from attempting to argue otherwise.
@@JustifiedNonetheless
How are 7 billion people supposed to figure out what is morally objective. everything about morality in the bible can be interpreted however you want it to be. I can personally have all 10 commandments justified in all my actions. If morality were objective then we would not be able to abuse it. So if it's true what you say that there is a moral "truth" then we act based on some moral principles we don't actually know about before we die. Which means that everyone's chances in the world of going to heaven or hell are 50/50.
At the end of the day, God put the tree there because if there was nothing to temp them, there would only be an illusion of free will. In order to test free will there has to be a choice of both good and bad.
I hate the free will argument for evil; taken to its logical conclusion, it means sin is possible in heaven, it means that when God created mans "free will", He created it not knowing exactly what He created, because like code, like a program, things don't just happen. And of course free will in the this sense denies the clear teaching if Scripture that our wills are enslaved to sin, and thus cannot choose good unto salvation. All sound Christians believe in federal headship of Adam, and yet on this issue, many seem to deny it. Adam was mankinds representative, and because he failed, we are all born with wills enslaved to sin. This theme is throughout all of Scripture. And so, free will in the sense of the ability to choose good (purely) does not exist, period. Otherwise we'd have a humanity capable of what Adam failed at, and yet Scripture says Jesus is the 2nd Adam, not Adams posterity.
How did God resolve sin? He sent His Son essentially Himself to live the perfect human experience and the die a brutal death and then conquer death through the resurrection. The real question is why did God create what He loved knowing they would reject Him and He what have to suffer and die for them. Love is the answer and perfect love is something I am looking forward to seeing.
“If God is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why does he need babies to be born with cancer?”
The correct response should include,
“Wait, what? Do you seriously believe those are the sole relevant factors? And do you seriously expect to understand God’s good, pleasing and perfect will in all situations? The problem is not mine (it may be yours, or it may just be a red herring you’ve decided to lay across the trail). If you want an answer to that question, take it up with the one who IS the answer. He hasn’t told me the answer, because it’s not in the Bible. I don’t have that answer. It’s beyond my pay grade until I get to heaven.”
Can you do inspiring philosophy and Marcus Ross debate on evolution and creation??
Thank you for the suggestion! I'll add it to the list 😊
I love religious debates!
The argument of “why did God put the tree here instead of over there” that’s just not relevant at all. If humans were given free will then there had to be at least rule they had the free will to choose not to break so either it was a tree here or a tree they had to invent a ladder to reach, it doesn’t matter one bit the rule was gonna be broken eventually it was just a matter of when
I'm not a fan of Turek. I don't disagree with him, but his arguments are weak and annoying.
Maybe it's the mights and maybes.
Turek is such a goofball, I love him
Lucifer sinned even where there was no tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Can you react to Jay Dyer vs Trent Horn? 🔥 🔥
It's on the list, for sure!
If we are going to have free will, the ability to make choices and in particular to choose God. Unfortunately that requires something be set in place for that choice to be made.
In response to Silverman's question about why God allows babies to suffer from cancer, despite being all-powerful and all-good, Christians believe that God's omnipotence and benevolence mean that any suffering a baby experiences in this life will be ultimately healed and redeemed in the afterlife. The assumption that God directly causes cancer is not necessarily accurate within the Christian perspective. Instead, Christians attribute all imperfections and brokenness to sin and view God as the sole path to restoration and wholeness.
While some atheists view this belief as a coping mechanism, it raises the question of why atheists would choose a worldview devoid of hope and justice if Christianity offers the possibility of both. Even if atheists don't believe in God, the idea that a benevolent deity might exist and could make things right in the end remains a possibility. So, why not consider that idea rather than rejecting it outright?
In reality, many people do adopt a belief in some form of higher power or gods. However, Christianity stands apart because of its central figure, Jesus Christ. His historical existence, death, and resurrection are unique. The claim that Jesus not only existed but also rose from the dead and is very much alive today is extraordinary. If this claim were false, it would likely have been disproven by now, especially by Jewish scholars and other historians. This unique aspect of the Christian faith provides believers with a certain hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus as their Savior and the forgiver of their sins.
Is this what it comes down
to in life. Who won the debate 🤔
Oh my.. thank you Dr. James White for righting this wrong lol
The tree must be there in the Garden of Eden for Adam to be able to truly free. Ant are free animal, it can walk in any direction it so chooses. Birds are free animals, it can choose to eat strawberry or apple when these two fruits are there for it. But their choice does not make much impact in their life and thus, they cannot love God. If Adam could only makes choices like animals then he could not love God. The Tree makes Adam choices great because the consequences of obedient or disobedient is unthinkable. If Adam succeeded in the Garden we will all born without sin. But He failed. We all are born with his sin in us. It took this must for Adam to be able to love God according to God's desire.
Could you also do dzousa vs alex oconner
interesting. The wise guy obviously doesnt understand what "taking responsibility" (4:40) means. It does not require any god or governement. It means that the bucks stands with you.
Or perhaps you don’t understand that that phrase doesn’t actually mean anything on its own. If there is no government, and you simply decide what doesnt and doesnt “stop with you,” then that means anyone can decide where the line is.
That line can be at calling someone a dirty word, or it can stop at genocide.
If “the buck stops with you,” then that means it stops with everyone relativistically, not objectively.
actually, Silverman shows he doesn't understand the term, "objective morality" when he says morality is "relative", not "objective". Morality can be both objective and relative.
Of course God ordained that the fall would happen. Pretending that this myth of libertarian free will is the cause of everything is just a cop out. God is sovereign over all things and God has a morally sufficient reason for all things. Period, end of story. That’s the answer. As an atheist you don’t get to complain about what is evil or what is good, outside of your own opinion. Thats where the argument should be focused from Frank, but he abandons that and tries to rest on free will as an excuse.
This was one of the first debates I watched and looking back it's one of the least intellectually stimulating.
But on the bright side, what it lacks in intellectual depth it makes up for in entertainment value.
The fact is that everything foundationally gets filtered through our subjectivity. Frank Turek, just like anyone else, believes in God because he subjectively believes that it is good.
I watched this debate a while ago and really didn't care for Turek's performance. He doesn't seem to be able to think on his feet and respond to tough questions he hasn't faced before. He spends a lot of time fielding the same set of questions from college students who are regurgitating the same old talking points.
Silverman comes off as bitter, not making any real points other than God is mean.
I remember finding Christopher Hitchens to be a good debater until I realized he was just expressing his disappointment with the job God was doing.🙄
James white did a lot better, Tarek should have played James's answers 😂
Original or origin of sin did not start at the garden, it started when Lucifer rebelled against God’s government of love. We also know that sin is a mystery (2 Thess 2:7-9). It being a mystery is beyond our understanding because God could not have anything be a mystery since He is omniscient. We must accept by faith that the original sinful acts of Lucifer are not of His causal creation of a being He know would sin. In our theistic worldview there is room for us to not know everything.
Their is no issue with lack of space for humans on earth.... Bizzare criticism.
I really liked this debate. Both of them were informed and playful. Frank often got the points however is missing the fundamentals which is common for believers
Turek didn't do so well; neither did Silverman, but he did do better. Debates (of which I've only seen a few) seem like a waste of time. Nothing is ever settled and no mind is ever changed. When I tell people about the gospel, I present it and answer questions, until they start asking the far out crazy questions, because I don't dance in circle nor argue with anyone. If the unbeliever wants to "win" and prove their point, then it's okay, buddy, you won, see you on judgement day! Jesus nor the apostles ever forced anyone to listen to the gospel.
I'm half way through turek video and I'm gritting my teeth
Wouldnt a proper response to the whole tree discussion is to point out silverman is assuming God doesnt have a plan from the beginning, which would give reason to why God placed the tree where he did?
If people are the cause of suffering, and free will demands the choice of good or evil, how CAN God put an end to suffering without violating mans so called free will? If man free will demands choice, as just stated, then this new world of an end to suffering cannot be insured for eternity is a long time and certainly someone will eventually make a choice to sin thus causing suffering. It seems to me this definition of free will results in an a God who bows to man and can never truly put an end to suffering.
But there is no Freedom without choice, God gave Adam & Eve choice to be truly free. I think God can still be surprised & delighted by our actions even if he knows the ultimate outcome
The creature stands in judgment of God!
Turek is not a great apologist. I'm a Christian pastor, and I never recommend him. I'd push people to White or Craig, who are much better at this type of thing.